maverick786us
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,118
Are mesh routers better option compared to conventional routers, specially in a house where internet signals can be weak in certain corners compared to rest of the house?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Mesh routers
- Thread starter maverick786us
- Start date
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,022
Your question is too vague.
The best implementation continues to be multiple access points (aka "routers" with all router functionality disabled) at ideal locations, all connected via a wired backbone. Run them all with the same SSID, and your client devices will roam between them seamlessly as needed to maintain good signal strength. The downside to that approach, obviously, is that it requires you to run Ethernet to every location where you have an access point. Mesh routers/nodes attempt to do that, but without the wired backbone, by having the mesh nodes forward traffic back to the main wireless access point/router. The big difference is that with the wired approach, you can make sure that your client devices are never more than one wireless hop away. With a mesh network, devices will often be 2 (or possibly more) hops away. Wireless is already less reliable and has higher latency than a wired connection. The added latency is cumulative when you are making multiple hops.
If you can only have one wired access point/router, then a mesh system is an interesting option. Of course, depending on the number of areas you have where you are actually having signal issues, you might be able to get away with simply using a cheap extender instead of switching to an expensive mesh system. The key with using extenders is to make sure that each radio is never doing more than one thing at the same time. For many of the cheap $20-30 extenders, they will have a 2.4Ghz radio and a 5Ghz radio. You can set it up so that the 5Ghz radio is handling upstream traffic to the main access point/router and the 2.4Ghz radio is handling connections to client devices, or vise versa. Otherwise, in stock configuration, one of the radios usually ends up having to pull double-duty potentially handling both upstream and downstream traffic at the same time, and that is where extenders can fail hard. Configured correctly, a cheap extender can perform quite well. Even in a big house you probably wouldn't need more than one or two extenders configured like that in order to fill in dead areas.
The best implementation continues to be multiple access points (aka "routers" with all router functionality disabled) at ideal locations, all connected via a wired backbone. Run them all with the same SSID, and your client devices will roam between them seamlessly as needed to maintain good signal strength. The downside to that approach, obviously, is that it requires you to run Ethernet to every location where you have an access point. Mesh routers/nodes attempt to do that, but without the wired backbone, by having the mesh nodes forward traffic back to the main wireless access point/router. The big difference is that with the wired approach, you can make sure that your client devices are never more than one wireless hop away. With a mesh network, devices will often be 2 (or possibly more) hops away. Wireless is already less reliable and has higher latency than a wired connection. The added latency is cumulative when you are making multiple hops.
If you can only have one wired access point/router, then a mesh system is an interesting option. Of course, depending on the number of areas you have where you are actually having signal issues, you might be able to get away with simply using a cheap extender instead of switching to an expensive mesh system. The key with using extenders is to make sure that each radio is never doing more than one thing at the same time. For many of the cheap $20-30 extenders, they will have a 2.4Ghz radio and a 5Ghz radio. You can set it up so that the 5Ghz radio is handling upstream traffic to the main access point/router and the 2.4Ghz radio is handling connections to client devices, or vise versa. Otherwise, in stock configuration, one of the radios usually ends up having to pull double-duty potentially handling both upstream and downstream traffic at the same time, and that is where extenders can fail hard. Configured correctly, a cheap extender can perform quite well. Even in a big house you probably wouldn't need more than one or two extenders configured like that in order to fill in dead areas.
It's a little more complicated. "Mesh" is a marketing buzzword, not a technical spec. Not all "mesh" kits actually support fast roaming/steering. Then some routers support fast roaming but not WiFi backhaul and they call this "mesh" too. Buy more than one, put all but one in AP mode, wire them up, and turn on "mesh" mode. You get the same thing with mesh kit radios. The cheaper ones don't have a dedicated radio for the backhaul, so they have the same sort of performance issues GotNoRice was talking about with range extenders. Also a lot of "mesh" kits can be wired. So there isn't really a proper definition of what "mesh" is.
It's hard to make a suggestion on what's best without knowing anything about performance requirements and budget. Info on house layout would be good too. The best solution could be anything from a high end "mesh" kit and hiring a contractor to wire your house to a cheap extender or two or even putting some old router in AP mode.
If you're just asking what's most performant (as far as consumer grade gear goes), a "mesh" kit with dedicated backhaul radios and support for fast roaming should have the best performance without a wired backhaul if the nodes are placed correctly. If you do wire them fast roaming is still nice to have, but the extra radio is a waste of $. Catch is you might get stuck with the extra radio if you want the absolute fastest. You might want to look at routers in AP mode if you're wiring them. Some brands/models support fast roaming between routers, and it might be cheaper. You'll have to read the fine print to figure out if it's supported.
It's marketing today, but the original Meraki indoor and outdoor access points were true examples of a real mesh at its finest. Each access point communicated seamlessly with another wired or wirelessly and all of them knew because of Meraki's dashboard, what today we would call 'cloud management'. I used it at our hotels where traditionally set up systems just had issues. I used VDSL ethernet extenders to use a pair of 30 year old pots line to get ethernet between the 4 buildings and then ran the Meraki's over that so they had a wired backbone in most cases. The system was so reliable that when switches or even a VDSL extender power supply failed, the network self-healed and customers never even knew there was an issue. It was also automatically multi-wan out of the box, so when our cable had issues, it automatically switched to a fractional t1 we had or it would have certain traffic go over either interface depending on the distance and routing. The system was super smart and that's why I took it with me when the new owners of the hotel were just going to trash it. It would be brilliant to use today but it had serious bandwidth limitations due to the tech used--5Mbs on wireless and 11Mb on the wired links between units. It still makes a great 'guest portal', so that's what I plan to use it for, lol.
t1337duder
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 783
For a regular consumer who doesn't want to get in the weeds of manually configuring your router, a lot of mesh networks (e.g. Eero) make it extremely easy to provide a house with full coverage and no weak spots. "Mesh" is a buzzword, as mentioned, but usually they're meant to be easier to setup with the intended goal of provide enhanced WiFi coverage. If you want the most straight-forward route with the least headache, this route might serve you well.
If you're a person who enjoys networking and manually setting up the network, then you'll find that there are a variety of ways to boost the WiFi signal around the house, and you'll likely find a cheaper or more efficient way to setup the network.
Personally, I just use Eero's. I used to get super obsessed with my network, flash my routers with open firmware, and try to manually configure them to maximize the performance. But after setting up basic SOHO networks for customers, I discovered the Eero to be a godsend. Good performance, minimal setup. Frankly, when Wi-Fi was newer, you had to put a lot more work into it. With modern WiFi, you don't have to work half as hard to get a good signal around the household.
And FWIW I'm just using Eero as an example because it's what I've used personally. There are better mesh options, but the ones from the big networking brands have all become similarly streamlined and easy to setup.
If you're a person who enjoys networking and manually setting up the network, then you'll find that there are a variety of ways to boost the WiFi signal around the house, and you'll likely find a cheaper or more efficient way to setup the network.
Personally, I just use Eero's. I used to get super obsessed with my network, flash my routers with open firmware, and try to manually configure them to maximize the performance. But after setting up basic SOHO networks for customers, I discovered the Eero to be a godsend. Good performance, minimal setup. Frankly, when Wi-Fi was newer, you had to put a lot more work into it. With modern WiFi, you don't have to work half as hard to get a good signal around the household.
And FWIW I'm just using Eero as an example because it's what I've used personally. There are better mesh options, but the ones from the big networking brands have all become similarly streamlined and easy to setup.
Yep, and while they are great for consumers that don't care about throwing a couple of hundred into their 'easy' network, anyone who has specific requirements or security concerns (or are on a budget) may find that these do not fit the bill.
maverick786us
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,118
In my house the internet router is at one corner of the living room, so any device connected within the living room and one room attached to the living room receives good signals. But 2 rooms connected to other edge of the living room receive weak or sometimes, no internet signals at all
maverick786us
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,118
My parents they simply want to connect with WiFi and forget. Unlike me they aren't techies so for them that manual setting up network isn't an option. When they are in their bedroom they always complain that internet isn't working and i have to help them with tech support
Most people are like this--hence why these products exist.
I've got an Orbi Mesh system. I had a nighthawk on one side of the house and in the first floor. Signal in the kitchen was almost non-existent. I bought an extender and placed it in the half way point on the first floor, which improved things but speeds were crappy. The Orbi utilizes a tri band system. One is for the back haul connection. So I've got the main AP where the nighthawk was. One satellite where the extender was and one upstairs near the kitchen. I now get a strong signal throughout the house, even in the garage, backyard, and street.
So on that note, a mesh system with a dedicated back haul whether it's wireless or wired, will perform better.
So on that note, a mesh system with a dedicated back haul whether it's wireless or wired, will perform better.
Properly placed APs would have also solved the issue with signal in the kitchen, but unless you've got ethernet jacks or using powerline or moca adapters, getting a nice backhaul becomes the issue.
Agreed. And in my case I do not have cable (coax or ethernet) in essentially the center of the house and for personal reason I do not put my main PC on WiFi. Gotta work with what you have. Again, though, the Mesh system with a wireless backhaul is working wonders. Eventually I'll get around to a wired back haul and maybe some different APs.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,759
You mostly get what you pay for with mesh systems. If you want something with really good coverage it will cost a lot more than the budget systems.
The good thing is they're modular, so you can start with one or two then add more if coverage isn't good enough. I personally like the Asus ZenWifi systems, but there are other good ones too.
This guy has a lot of good router and mesh system reviews https://www.youtube.com/@landpet
The good thing is they're modular, so you can start with one or two then add more if coverage isn't good enough. I personally like the Asus ZenWifi systems, but there are other good ones too.
This guy has a lot of good router and mesh system reviews https://www.youtube.com/@landpet
Most people don't, especially if you have an older home, but the newest powerline adapters can work wonders--usually full duplex fast ethernet speeds over even very crappy wire. Something to consider if it's faster than the wireless backhaul.
If you're using a wireless router, you're already doing it wrong. The defining characteristic of a mesh WiFi system is a wireless backhaul. A wireless backhaul has the same disadvantages of WiFi so effectively multiplies these problems with the advantage of not having to have a wired backbone. Want to improve connectivity, stability, and throughput then you have to use a wired backhaul. If you're using a wired backhaul then you should have just purchased AP's rather than "mesh". Separating wireless from a router allows router hardware to do it's primary mission of routing/firewalling packets rather than trying to do router plus wireless AP duty. The KISS philosophy generally leads to a better outcome. Way too many people complaining about their wireless router locking up and having to replace their router because of WiFi concerns.
This is typically my default design philosophy--let routers route and wifi to wifi. The other advantage of doing it this way is that you can upgrade piecemeal as necessary vs an overhaul every time.